CREATE TABLE AS - PERFORMANCE ISSUE

Hi All,
I am creating a table CONTROLDATA from existing tables PF_CONTROLDATA & ICDSV2_AutoCodeDetails as per the below query.
CREATE TABLE CONTROLDATA AS
SELECT CONTROLVALUEID, VALUEORDER, CONTEXTID, AUDITORDER, INVALIDATINGREVISIONNUMBER, CONTROLID, STRVALUE
FROM PF_CONTROLDATA CD1
JOIN ICDSV2_AutoCodeDetails AC ON (CD1.CONTROLID=AC.MODTERM_CONTROL OR CD1.CONTROLID=AC.FAILED_CTRL OR CD1.CONTROLID=AC.CODE_CTRL)
AND CD1.AUDITORDER=(SELECT MAX(AUDITORDER) FROM PF_CONTROLDATA CD2 WHERE CD1.CONTEXTID=CD2.CONTEXTID);The above statement is taking around 10mins of time to create the table CONTROLDATA which is not acceptible in our environment. Can any one please suggest is there any way to improve the performance of the above query to create the table CONTROLDATA under a minute?
PF_CONTROLDATA has 1,50,00,000 (15million) rows and has composite index(XIF16PF_CONTROLDATA) on CONTEXTID, AUDITORDER columns and one more index(XIE1PF_CONTROLDATA) on CONTROLID column.
ICDSV2_AutoCodeDetails has only 6 rows and no indexes.
After the create table statement CONTROLDATA will have around 10,00,000 (1million) records.
Can some one give any suggestion to improve the performance of the above query?
oracle version is : 10.2.0.3
Tkprof output is:
create table CONTROLDATA2 as
SELECT CONTROLVALUEID, VALUEORDER, CONTEXTID, AUDITORDER, INVALIDATINGREVISIONNUMBER, CONTROLID, DATATYPE, NUMVALUE, FLOATVALUE, STRVALUE, PFDATETIME, MONTH, DAY, YEAR, HOUR, MINUTE, SECOND, UNITID, NORMALIZEDVALUE, NORMALIZEDUNITID, PARENTCONTROLVALUEID, PARENTVALUEORDER
FROM PF_CONTROLDATA CD1
     JOIN ICDSV2_AutoCodeDetails AC ON (CD1.CONTROLID=AC.MODTERM_CONTROL OR CD1.CONTROLID=AC.FAILED_CTRL OR CD1.CONTROLID=AC.CODE_CTRL OR CD1.CONTROLID=AC.SYNONYM_CTRL)
     AND AUDITORDER=(SELECT MAX(AUDITORDER) FROM PF_CONTROLDATA CD2 WHERE CD1.CONTEXTID=CD2.CONTEXTID)
call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
Parse        1      0.00       0.03          2          2          0           0
Execute      1     15.25     593.43     211688    4990786       6617     1095856
Fetch        0      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
total        2     15.25     593.47     211690    4990788       6617     1095856
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 40
********************************************************************************Explain plan output is:
Plan hash value: 2771048406
| Id | Operation                           | Name                   | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | CREATE TABLE STATEMENT              |                        |     1 |   105 | 3609K (1)| 14:02:20 |
|   1 | LOAD AS SELECT                     | CONTROLDATA2           |       |       |            |          |
|* 2 |   FILTER                            |                        |       |       |            |          |
|   3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID      | PF_CONTROLDATA         |   178K| 9228K| 55344   (1)| 00:12:55 |
|   4 |     NESTED LOOPS                    |                        |   891K|    89M| 55344   (1)| 00:12:55 |
|   5 |      TABLE ACCESS FULL              | ICDSV2_AUTOCODEDETAILS |     5 |   260 |     4   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|   6 |      BITMAP CONVERSION TO ROWIDS    |                        |       |       |            |          |
|   7 |       BITMAP OR                     |                        |       |       |            |          |
|   8 |        BITMAP CONVERSION FROM ROWIDS|                        |       |       |            |          |
|* 9 |         INDEX RANGE SCAN            | XIE1PF_CONTROLDATA     |       |       |    48   (3)| 00:00:01 |
| 10 |        BITMAP CONVERSION FROM ROWIDS|                        |       |       |            |          |
|* 11 |         INDEX RANGE SCAN            | XIE1PF_CONTROLDATA     |       |       |    48   (3)| 00:00:01 |
| 12 |        BITMAP CONVERSION FROM ROWIDS|                        |       |       |            |          |
|* 13 |         INDEX RANGE SCAN            | XIE1PF_CONTROLDATA     |       |       |    48   (3)| 00:00:01 |
| 14 |        BITMAP CONVERSION FROM ROWIDS|                        |       |       |            |          |
|* 15 |         INDEX RANGE SCAN            | XIE1PF_CONTROLDATA     |       |       |    48   (3)| 00:00:01 |
| 16 |    SORT AGGREGATE                   |                        |     1 |    16 |            |          |
| 17 |     FIRST ROW                       |                        |     1 |    16 |     3   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 18 |      INDEX RANGE SCAN (MIN/MAX)     | XIF16PF_CONTROLDATA    |     1 |    16 |     3   (0)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   2 - filter("AUDITORDER"= (SELECT MAX("AUDITORDER") FROM "PF_CONTROLDATA" "CD2" WHERE
              "CD2"."CONTEXTID"=:B1))
   9 - access("CD1"."CONTROLID"="AC"."MODTERM_CONTROL")
11 - access("CD1"."CONTROLID"="AC"."FAILED_CTRL")
13 - access("CD1"."CONTROLID"="AC"."CODE_CTRL")
15 - access("CD1"."CONTROLID"="AC"."SYNONYM_CTRL")
18 - access("CD2"."CONTEXTID"=:B1)
Note
   - dynamic sampling used for this statement
********************************************************************************I tried to change the above logic even by using insert statement and APPEND hint, but still taking the same time.
Please suggest.
Edited by: 867546 on Jun 22, 2011 2:42 PM

Hi user2361373
i tried using nologging also but still it is taking same amout of time. Please find below the tkprof output.
create table CONTROLDATA2 NOLOGGING as
SELECT CONTROLVALUEID, VALUEORDER, CONTEXTID, AUDITORDER, INVALIDATINGREVISIONNUMBER, CONTROLID, DATATYPE, NUMVALUE, FLOATVALUE, STRVALUE, PFDATETIME, MONTH, DAY, YEAR, HOUR, MINUTE, SECOND, UNITID, NORMALIZEDVALUE, NORMALIZEDUNITID, PARENTCONTROLVALUEID, PARENTVALUEORDER
FROM PF_CONTROLDATA CD1
     JOIN ICDSV2_AutoCodeDetails AC ON (CD1.CONTROLID=AC.MODTERM_CONTROL OR CD1.CONTROLID=AC.FAILED_CTRL OR CD1.CONTROLID=AC.CODE_CTRL OR CD1.CONTROLID=AC.SYNONYM_CTRL)
AND AUDITORDER=(SELECT MAX(AUDITORDER) FROM PF_CONTROLDATA CD2 WHERE CD1.CONTEXTID=CD2.CONTEXTID)
call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
Parse        1      0.03       0.03          2          2          0           0
Execute      1     13.98     598.54     211963    4990776       6271     1095856
Fetch        0      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
total        2     14.01     598.57     211965    4990778       6271     1095856
Misses in library cache during parse: 1
Optimizer mode: ALL_ROWS
Parsing user id: 40
********************************************************************************Edited by: 867546 on Jun 22, 2011 3:09 PM
Edited by: 867546 on Jun 22, 2011 3:10 PM

Similar Messages

SQLDeveloper 1.5.4 Table browsing performance issue

Hi all,
I had read of previous posts regarding SQLDeveloper 1.5.3 table browsing performance issues. I downloaded and installed version 1.5.4 and it appears the problem has gotten worse!
It takes ages to display rows of this particular table (the structure is shown below). It takes much longer to view it in Single Record format. Then attempting to Export the data is another frustrating exercise. By the way, TOAD does not seem to have this problem so I guess it is a SQLDeveloper bug.
Can someone help with any workarounds?
Thanks
Chiedu
Here is the table structure:
create table EMAIL_SETUP
APPL_ID VARCHAR2(10) not null,
EML_ID VARCHAR2(10) not null,
EML_DESC VARCHAR2(80) not null,
PRIORITY_NO_DM NUMBER(1) default 3 not null
constraint CC_EMAIL_SETUP_4 check (
PRIORITY_NO_DM in (1,2,3,4,5)),
DTLS_YN VARCHAR2(1) default '0' not null
constraint CC_EMAIL_SETUP_5 check (
DTLS_YN in ('0','1')),
ATT_YN VARCHAR2(1) default '0' not null
constraint CC_EMAIL_SETUP_6 check (
ATT_YN in ('0','1')),
MSG_FMT VARCHAR2(5) default 'TEXT' not null
constraint CC_EMAIL_SETUP_7 check (
MSG_FMT in ('TEXT','HTML')),
MSG_TMPLT VARCHAR2(4000) not null,
MSG_MIME_TYPE VARCHAR2(500) not null,
PARAM_NO NUMBER(2) default 0 not null
constraint CC_EMAIL_SETUP_10 check (
PARAM_NO between 0 and 99),
IN_USE_YN VARCHAR2(1) not null
constraint CC_EMAIL_SETUP_11 check (
IN_USE_YN in ('0','1')),
DFLT_USE_YN VARCHAR2(1) default '0' not null
constraint CC_EMAIL_SETUP_12 check (
DFLT_USE_YN in ('0','1')),
TAB_NM VARCHAR2(30) null ,
FROM_ADDR VARCHAR2(80) null ,
RPLY_ADDR VARCHAR2(80) null ,
MSG_SBJ VARCHAR2(100) null ,
MSG_HDR VARCHAR2(2000) null ,
MSG_FTR VARCHAR2(2000) null ,
ATT_TYPE_DM VARCHAR2(4) null
constraint CC_EMAIL_SETUP_19 check (
ATT_TYPE_DM is null or (ATT_TYPE_DM in ('RAW','TEXT'))),
ATT_INLINE_YN VARCHAR2(1) null
constraint CC_EMAIL_SETUP_20 check (
ATT_INLINE_YN is null or (ATT_INLINE_YN in ('0','1'))),
ATT_MIME_TYPE VARCHAR2(500) null ,
constraint PK_EMAIL_SETUP primary key (EML_ID)
)

Check Tools | Preferences | Database | Advanced Parameters and post the value you have there.
Try setting it to a small number and report if you see any improvement.
-Raghu

Multiple table select Performance Issue

Hi,
I would like to get an opinion which from these query which is faster and has a performance issue..
SELECT EMP_ID, NAME, DEPT_NAME
FROM EMP, DEPT
WHERE EMP_ID = DEPT_ID;
or
SELECT EMP_ID, NAME, (SELECT DEPT_NAME FROM DEPT WHERE ID = P_ID)
FROM EMP
WHERE EMP_ID = P_ID;

lets say that EMP_ID on Dept table is linked to EMP_ID table on EMP..Well...I don't get your design, but the two queries may return different results.
Comparing the performance doesn't make sense.
Nevertheless, the only way is to run them both and see which one is faster or see which one has the lowest IO.
There's no way we can tell you which is faster by just looking at the text of the queries.
Post some explain plans or traces.

Create table select option Issue

I have created a copy of an exisitng table in the database as -
create table test1_temp as select * from test1 where 1=2;
The table was created w/o data.
But the problem is that the indexes and primary key of table "test1" are not copied to "test1_temp".
Since the table ddl is copied dynamically, I want to copy the indexes and primary keys also dynamically. How should I achieve this.
Pls help.Thanks.

user10525117 wrote:
Thanks for your suggestions.
Actually there are 2 problems - 1) the sql needs to be run automatically using a script.Hence no manual intervention is possible. In that case have your script that search for the table_name and replace with new table_name (sed in unix)
2) the customer has adviced this approach of creating the table.
In that case you have to explain to your customer that creation of index is not possible in CTAS.
Based on these facts, pls suggest.
Thanks.I hope you are creating temporary tables, and would be dropping that tables later. If that is the case (ie. you do not mind the tablespace in which index is created). In this case you can have your pl/sql that runs dynamic sql to create the index fetching the data from user_constraints table.
Regards
Anurag

Performance issue of frequently data inserted tables

Hi all,
Have a table named raw_trap_store having columns as trap_id(number,PK),Source_IP(varchar2), OID(varchar2),Message(CLOB) and received_time(date).
This table is partitioned across 24 partitions where partitioning column being received_time. (every hour's data will be stored in each partition).
This table is getting inserted with 40-50 records/sec on an average. Overall number of records for a day will be around 2.8-3 million. Data will be retained for 2 days.
No updates will be happening on this table.
Performance issue:N
Need a report which involves selection of records from this table based on certain values of Source IP (filtering condition on source_ip column).
Need a report which involves selection of records from this table based on certain values of OID (filtering condition on OID column).
But, if i create an index on SourceIP and OID column, then inserts are getting slow. (have created a normal index. not partitioned index)
Please help me to address the above issue.

Giving the nature of your report (based on Source_IP and OID) and the nature of your table partitioning (range partitioned by received_time), you have already made a good decision to create these particular indexes as a normal (b-tree or global) and not locally partitioned. Because if you have locally partitioned them, your reports will not eliminate partitions (because they do not include the partition key in their where clause) and hence your index range scans will scan all 24 partitions generating a lot of logical I/O
That is said, remember that generally we insert once and select many times. You have to balance that. If you are sure that it is the creation of your two indexes that has decreased the insert performance then you may set them at in an unusable state before the insert and rebuild them after. But this might be a good advice only if the volume of data to be inserted is much bigger than the existing volume of data before the insert.
And if you are not deleting from the table and the table does not contain triggers and integrity constraints (like FK constraint) then you can opt for a direct path insert using the hint /*+ append */
Best regards
Mohamed Houri
<mod. action: removed unecessary blog ref.>
Message was edited by: Nicolas.Gasparotto

Performance issues with version enable partitioned tables?

Hi all,
Are there any known performance issues with version enable partitioned tables?
Ive been doing some performance testes with a large version enable partitioned table and it seems that OCB optimiser is choosing very expensive plans during merge operations.
Tanks in advance,
Vitor
Example:
 Object Name Rows Bytes Cost Object Node In/Out PStart PStop
UPDATE STATEMENT Optimizer Mode=CHOOSE 1 249
UPDATE SIG.SIG_QUA_IMG_LT
NESTED LOOPS SEMI 1 266 249
PARTITION RANGE ALL 1 9
TABLE ACCESS FULL SIG.SIG_QUA_IMG_LT 1 259 2 1 9
VIEW SYS.VW_NSO_1 1 7 247
NESTED LOOPS 1 739 247
NESTED LOOPS 1 677 247
NESTED LOOPS 1 412 246
NESTED LOOPS 1 114 244
INDEX RANGE SCAN WMSYS.MODIFIED_TABLES_PK 1 62 2
INDEX RANGE SCAN SIG.QIM_PK 1 52 243
TABLE ACCESS BY GLOBAL INDEX ROWID SIG.SIG_QUA_IMG_LT 1 298 2 ROWID ROW L
INDEX RANGE SCAN SIG.SIG_QUA_IMG_PKI$ 1 1
INDEX RANGE SCAN WMSYS.WM$NEXTVER_TABLE_NV_INDX 1 265 1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN WMSYS.MODIFIED_TABLES_PK 1 62
/* Formatted on 2004/04/19 18:57 (Formatter Plus v4.8.0) */
UPDATE /*+ USE_NL(Z1) ROWID(Z1) */sig.sig_qua_img_lt z1
SET z1.nextver =
SYS.ltutil.subsversion
(z1.nextver,
SYS.ltutil.getcontainedverinrange (z1.nextver,
'SIG.SIG_QUA_IMG',
'NpCyPCX3dkOAHSuBMjGioQ==',
4574,
4575
4574
WHERE z1.ROWID IN (
(SELECT /*+ ORDERED USE_NL(T1) USE_NL(T2) USE_NL(J2) USE_NL(J3)
INDEX(T1 QIM_PK) INDEX(T2 SIG_QUA_IMG_PKI$)
INDEX(J2 WM$NEXTVER_TABLE_NV_INDX) INDEX(J3 MODIFIED_TABLES_PK) */
t2.ROWID
FROM (SELECT /*+ INDEX(WM$MODIFIED_TABLES MODIFIED_TABLES_PK) */
UNIQUE VERSION
FROM wmsys.wm$modified_tables
WHERE table_name = 'SIG.SIG_QUA_IMG'
AND workspace = 'NpCyPCX3dkOAHSuBMjGioQ=='
AND VERSION > 4574
AND VERSION <= 4575) j1,
sig.sig_qua_img_lt t1,
sig.sig_qua_img_lt t2,
wmsys.wm$nextver_table j2,
(SELECT /*+ INDEX(WM$MODIFIED_TABLES MODIFIED_TABLES_PK) */
UNIQUE VERSION
FROM wmsys.wm$modified_tables
WHERE table_name = 'SIG.SIG_QUA_IMG'
AND workspace = 'NpCyPCX3dkOAHSuBMjGioQ=='
AND VERSION > 4574
AND VERSION <= 4575) j3
WHERE t1.VERSION = j1.VERSION
AND t1.ima_id = t2.ima_id
AND t1.qim_inf_esq_x_tile = t2.qim_inf_esq_x_tile
AND t1.qim_inf_esq_y_tile = t2.qim_inf_esq_y_tile
AND t2.nextver != '-1'
AND t2.nextver = j2.next_vers
AND j2.VERSION = j3.VERSION))

Hello Vitor,
There are currently no known issues with version enabled tables that are partitioned. The merge operation may need to access all of the partitions of a table depending on the data that needs to be moved/copied from the child to the parent. This is the reason for the 'Partition Range All' step in the plan that you provided. The majority of the remaining steps are due to the hints that have been added, since this plan has provided the best performance for us in the past for this particular statement. If this is not the case for you, and you feel that another plan would yield better performance, then please let me know and I will take a look at it.
One suggestion would be to make sure that the table was been recently analyzed so that the optimizer has the most current data about the table.
Performance issues are very hard to fix without a reproducible test case, so it may be advisable to file a TAR if you continue to have significant performance issues with the mergeWorkspace operation.
Thank You,
Ben

Query plan changes when query is used in CREATE TABLE AS

We've puzzled by the fact that EXPLAIN PLAN gives a much different output for a SELECT statement than it does when the same statement is used for CREATE TABLE . . . AS SELECT.
The bad part is that the CREATE TABLE version performs very badly, and that's what we want the query for.
Why does this happen? Is there a difference (from the database's point of view) between retrieving a set of rows to display to the user and putting that same set into a new table? Doesn't this make it harder to diagnose and fix query performance problems?
Here's our query:
create table query_test AS
select term, parentTerm, apidb.tab_to_string(cast(collect(trim(to_char(internal)))
 as apidb.varchartab), ', ') as internal
 from (
 select distinct ga.organism as term,
 ga.species as parentTerm,
 tn.taxon_id as internal
 from apidb.GeneAttributes ga, SRES.TaxonName tn, sres.Taxon t,
 dots.AaSequence aas, dots.SecondaryStructure ss
 where ga.organism = tn.name
 and tn.taxon_id = t.taxon_id
 and t.taxon_id = aas.taxon_id
 and aas.aa_sequence_id = ss.aa_sequence_id
 and t.rank != 'species'
 union
 select distinct ga.species as term,
 '' as parentTerm,
 ts.taxon_id as internal
 from apidb.GeneAttributes ga, SRES.TaxonName tn, apidb.taxonSpecies ts,
 dots.aasequence aas, dots.SecondaryStructure ss
 where ga.organism = tn.name
 and tn.taxon_id = ts.taxon_id
 and ts.taxon_id = aas.taxon_id
 and aas.aa_sequence_id = ss.aa_sequence_id
 group by term,parentTerm;Without the CREATE TABLE, the plan looks like this:
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes |TempSpc| Cost (%CPU)| Time |
| 0 | CREATE TABLE STATEMENT | | 2911 | 5986K| | 18840 (1)| 00:03:47 |
| 1 | LOAD AS SELECT | QUERY_TEST | | | | | |
| 2 | VIEW | | 2911 | 5986K| | 18669 (1)| 00:03:45 |
| 3 | SORT GROUP BY | | 2911 | 332K| | 18660 (1)| 00:03:44 |
| 4 | VIEW | | 2911 | 332K| | 18659 (1)| 00:03:44 |
| 5 | SORT UNIQUE | | 2911 | 292K| | 18659 (6)| 00:03:44 |
| 6 | UNION-ALL | | | | | | |
|* 7 | HASH JOIN | | 2907 | 292K| 2160K| 17762 (1)| 00:03:34 |
| 8 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | GENEATTRIBUTES10650 | 40957 | 1679K| | 795 (1)| 00:00:10 |
|* 9 | HASH JOIN | | 53794 | 3204K| 1552K| 16675 (1)| 00:03:21 |
|* 10 | HASH JOIN | | 37802 | 1107K| | 12326 (1)| 00:02:28 |
|* 11 | HASH JOIN | | 37945 | 629K| | 10874 (1)| 00:02:11 |
| 12 | INDEX FAST FULL SCAN | SECONDARYSTRUCTURE_REVIX9 | 37945 | 222K| | 33 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 13 | INDEX FAST FULL SCAN | AASEQUENCEIMP_REVIX6 | 7886K| 82M| | 10816 (1)| 00:02:10 |
|* 14 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TAXON | 514K| 6530K| | 1450 (1)| 00:00:18 |
| 15 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TAXONNAME | 760K| 22M| | 2721 (1)| 00:00:33 |
|* 16 | HASH JOIN | | 4 | 380 | | 886 (1)| 00:00:11 |
| 17 | NESTED LOOPS | | 730 | 64970 | | 852 (1)| 00:00:11 |
|* 18 | HASH JOIN | | 1 | 78 | | 847 (1)| 00:00:11 |
| 19 | NESTED LOOPS | | | | | | |
| 20 | NESTED LOOPS | | 17 | 612 | | 51 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 21 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TAXONSPECIES10646 | 12 | 60 | | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 22 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | TAXONNAME_IND01 | 1 | | | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 23 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| TAXONNAME | 1 | 31 | | 4 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 24 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | GENEATTRIBUTES10650 | 40957 | 1679K| | 795 (1)| 00:00:10 |
|* 25 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | AASEQUENCEIMP_REVIX6 | 768 | 8448 | | 5 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 26 | INDEX FAST FULL SCAN | SECONDARYSTRUCTURE_REVIX9 | 37945 | 222K| | 33 (0)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
 7 - access("GA"."ORGANISM"="TN"."NAME")
 9 - access("TN"."TAXON_ID"="T"."TAXON_ID")
10 - access("T"."TAXON_ID"="TAXON_ID")
11 - access("AA_SEQUENCE_ID"="SS"."AA_SEQUENCE_ID")
14 - filter("T"."RANK"<>'species')
16 - access("AA_SEQUENCE_ID"="SS"."AA_SEQUENCE_ID")
18 - access("GA"."ORGANISM"="TN"."NAME")
22 - access("TN"."TAXON_ID"="TS"."TAXON_ID")
25 - access("TS"."TAXON_ID"="TAXON_ID")
46 rows selected.With the CREATE TABLE, the plan for the SELECT alone looks like this:
| Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time |
| 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 2 | 234 | 1786 (1)| 00:00:22 |
| 1 | SORT GROUP BY | | 2 | 234 | 1786 (1)| 00:00:22 |
| 2 | VIEW | | 2 | 234 | 1785 (1)| 00:00:22 |
| 3 | SORT UNIQUE | | 2 | 198 | 1785 (48)| 00:00:22 |
| 4 | UNION-ALL | | | | | |
|* 5 | HASH JOIN | | 1 | 103 | 949 (1)| 00:00:12 |
| 6 | NESTED LOOPS | | 199 | 19303 | 915 (1)| 00:00:11 |
| 7 | NESTED LOOPS | | 13 | 1118 | 850 (1)| 00:00:11 |
| 8 | NESTED LOOPS | | 13 | 949 | 824 (1)| 00:00:10 |
| 9 | VIEW | VW_DTP_E387155E | 13 | 546 | 797 (1)| 00:00:10 |
| 10 | HASH UNIQUE | | 13 | 546 | 797 (1)| 00:00:10 |
| 11 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | GENEATTRIBUTES10650 | 40957 | 1679K| 795 (1)| 00:00:10 |
| 12 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| TAXONNAME | 1 | 31 | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 13 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | TAXONNAME_IND02 | 1 | | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 14 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | TAXON | 1 | 13 | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 15 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | PK_TAXON | 1 | | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 16 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | AASEQUENCEIMP_REVIX6 | 15 | 165 | 5 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 17 | INDEX FAST FULL SCAN | SECONDARYSTRUCTURE_REVIX9 | 37945 | 222K| 33 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 18 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 95 | 834 (1)| 00:00:11 |
| 19 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 89 | 833 (1)| 00:00:10 |
|* 20 | HASH JOIN | | 1 | 78 | 828 (1)| 00:00:10 |
| 21 | NESTED LOOPS | | | | | |
| 22 | NESTED LOOPS | | 13 | 949 | 824 (1)| 00:00:10 |
| 23 | VIEW | VW_DTP_2AAE9FCE | 13 | 546 | 797 (1)| 00:00:10 |
| 24 | HASH UNIQUE | | 13 | 546 | 797 (1)| 00:00:10 |
| 25 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | GENEATTRIBUTES10650 | 40957 | 1679K| 795 (1)| 00:00:10 |
|* 26 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | TAXONNAME_IND02 | 1 | | 2 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 27 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| TAXONNAME | 1 | 31 | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 28 | TABLE ACCESS FULL | TAXONSPECIES10646 | 12 | 60 | 3 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 29 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | AASEQUENCEIMP_REVIX6 | 768 | 8448 | 5 (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 30 | INDEX RANGE SCAN | SECONDARYSTRUCTURE_REVIX9 | 1 | 6 | 1 (0)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
 5 - access("AA_SEQUENCE_ID"="SS"."AA_SEQUENCE_ID")
13 - access("ITEM_1"="TN"."NAME")
14 - filter("T"."RANK"<>'species')
15 - access("TN"."TAXON_ID"="T"."TAXON_ID")
16 - access("T"."TAXON_ID"="TAXON_ID")
20 - access("TN"."TAXON_ID"="TS"."TAXON_ID")
26 - access("ITEM_1"="TN"."NAME")
29 - access("TS"."TAXON_ID"="TAXON_ID")
30 - access("AA_SEQUENCE_ID"="SS"."AA_SEQUENCE_ID")
50 rows selected.Edited by: JohnI on Jul 18, 2011 2:19 PM
Edited by: JohnI on Jul 18, 2011 2:28 PM

Charles Hooper wrote a series of blog entries on a similar topic some time ago: http://hoopercharles.wordpress.com/2010/12/15/select-statement-is-fast-insert-into-using-the-select-statement-is-brutally-slow-1/ (including a lot of useful comments) and two following articles. I have to confess that I did not read the posts again - but I think you will find some good ideas how to analyze the problem.
Regards
Martin Preiss

Create Table taking long time (more than 60 minutes) and still running

Hi all,
I was able to create and drop table until yesterday, but now the when I issue the below statement the server is stuck, its showing creating table in process.... and then it hangs till you cancel the operation. Query of table and running the procedures are ok, so I am confused why only create table is having issues.
CREATE TABLE table1
( field1 VARCHAR2(20) );
Any help at the earliest will be appreciated,
Thanks

Just check up your status of the log files
select * from v$logfile
If the status is inactive,
Just do a
alter system switch logfile
The alert log should have the problem specified check for the file.
also try to recreate another user and take a try in table creation:
SQL> connect sys/******
SQL> create user scott identified by tiger default tablespace users temporary tablespace temp quota 100m on users;
SQL> grant connect, resource to scott;_
SQL> connect scott/tiger
SQL> create table xyz ( a number);
SQL> create table abc ( d number);
Could you successfully create the tables?

ORA-00911 w/create table

I'm trying to execute an SQL file with the following code:
create table "t_ap_xml"
"XML_ID" NUMBER,
"XML_NAME" VARCHAR2(128),
"XML_TYPE" VARCHAR(32),
"XML_CONTENT" "SYS"."XML_TYPE",
"XML_DESCRIPTION" VARCHAR2(4000)
..And i'm receiving the following error:
ERROR at line 8:
ORA-00911: invalid character
It is pointing to the semicolon as the problem. If i remove the semicolon, it seems to work. But if I place that code in a DDL with other create table commands, it gives me a ORA-00922 error at the line with the next create statement. Any ideas? Thanks.

I guess I should have been a bit more clear..
I am using SQL*Plus, and GET-ing a text .sql file made in a text editor.
It seems to work without the semicolon and only creating that single table. However, a problem occurs when trying to use multiple CREATE TABLE statements in the same sql file.
So for example.. here is an excerpt:
create table t_ap_xml
create table another_table
Generates the following error:
ORA-00922: missing or invalid option
..That error occurs on the line in which the second CREATE TABLE statement was issued.
Thanks for any help!

Performance issue Create table as select BLOB

Hi!
I have a performance issue when moving BLOB´s between tables. (The size of images files are from 2MB to 10MB).
I'm using follwing statement for example,
"Create table tmp_blob as select * from table_blob
where blob_id = 333;"
Is there any hints that I can give when moving data like this or is Oracle10g better with BLOB's?

Did you find a resolution to this issue?
We are also having the same issue and wondering if there is a faster mechanism to copy LOBs between two table.

Performance issues with pipelined table functions

I am testing pipelined table functions to be able to re-use the base_query function. Contrary to my understanding, the with_pipeline procedure runs 6 time slower than the legacy no_pipeline procedure. Am I missing something? The processor function is from [url http://www.oracle-developer.net/display.php?id=429]improving performance with pipelined table functions .
Edit: The underlying query returns 500,000 rows in about 3 minutes. So there are are no performance issues with the query itself.
Many thanks in advance.
CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE pipeline_example
IS
 TYPE resultset_typ IS REF CURSOR;
 TYPE row_typ IS RECORD (colC VARCHAR2(200), colD VARCHAR2(200), colE VARCHAR2(200));
 TYPE table_typ IS TABLE OF row_typ;
 FUNCTION base_query (argA IN VARCHAR2, argB IN VARCHAR2)
 RETURN resultset_typ;
 c_default_limit CONSTANT PLS_INTEGER := 100;
 FUNCTION processor (
 p_source_data IN resultset_typ,
 p_limit_size IN PLS_INTEGER DEFAULT c_default_limit)
 RETURN table_typ
 PIPELINED
 PARALLEL_ENABLE(PARTITION p_source_data BY ANY);
 PROCEDURE with_pipeline (argA IN VARCHAR2,
 argB IN VARCHAR2,
 o_resultset OUT resultset_typ);
 PROCEDURE no_pipeline (argA IN VARCHAR2,
 argB IN VARCHAR2,
 o_resultset OUT resultset_typ);
END pipeline_example;
CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE BODY pipeline_example
IS
 FUNCTION base_query (argA IN VARCHAR2, argB IN VARCHAR2)
 RETURN resultset_typ
 IS
 o_resultset resultset_typ;
 BEGIN
 OPEN o_resultset FOR
 SELECT colC, colD, colE
 FROM some_table
 WHERE colA = ArgA AND colB = argB;
 RETURN o_resultset;
 END base_query;
 FUNCTION processor (
 p_source_data IN resultset_typ,
 p_limit_size IN PLS_INTEGER DEFAULT c_default_limit)
 RETURN table_typ
 PIPELINED
 PARALLEL_ENABLE(PARTITION p_source_data BY ANY)
 IS
 aa_source_data table_typ;-- := table_typ ();
 BEGIN
 LOOP
 FETCH p_source_data
 BULK COLLECT INTO aa_source_data
 LIMIT p_limit_size;
 EXIT WHEN aa_source_data.COUNT = 0;
 /* Process the batch of (p_limit_size) records... */
 FOR i IN 1 .. aa_source_data.COUNT
 LOOP
 PIPE ROW (aa_source_data (i));
 END LOOP;
 END LOOP;
 CLOSE p_source_data;
 RETURN;
 END processor;
 PROCEDURE with_pipeline (argA IN VARCHAR2,
 argB IN VARCHAR2,
 o_resultset OUT resultset_typ)
 IS
 BEGIN
 OPEN o_resultset FOR
 SELECT /*+ PARALLEL(t, 5) */ colC,
 SUM (CASE WHEN colD > colE AND colE != '0' THEN colD / ColE END)de,
 SUM (CASE WHEN colE > colD AND colD != '0' THEN colE / ColD END)ed,
 SUM (CASE WHEN colD = colE AND colD != '0' THEN '1' END) de_one,
 SUM (CASE WHEN colD = '0' OR colE = '0' THEN '0' END) de_zero
 FROM TABLE (processor (base_query (argA, argB),100)) t
 GROUP BY colC
 ORDER BY colC
 END with_pipeline;
 PROCEDURE no_pipeline (argA IN VARCHAR2,
 argB IN VARCHAR2,
 o_resultset OUT resultset_typ)
 IS
 BEGIN
 OPEN o_resultset FOR
 SELECT colC,
 SUM (CASE WHEN colD > colE AND colE != '0' THEN colD / ColE END)de,
 SUM (CASE WHEN colE > colD AND colD != '0' THEN colE / ColD END)ed,
 SUM (CASE WHEN colD = colE AND colD != '0' THEN 1 END) de_one,
 SUM (CASE WHEN colD = '0' OR colE = '0' THEN '0' END) de_zero
 FROM (SELECT colC, colD, colE
 FROM some_table
 WHERE colA = ArgA AND colB = argB)
 GROUP BY colC
 ORDER BY colC;
 END no_pipeline;
END pipeline_example;
ALTER PACKAGE pipeline_example COMPILE;Edited by: Earthlink on Nov 14, 2010 9:47 AM
Edited by: Earthlink on Nov 14, 2010 11:31 AM
Edited by: Earthlink on Nov 14, 2010 11:32 AM
Edited by: Earthlink on Nov 20, 2010 12:04 PM
Edited by: Earthlink on Nov 20, 2010 12:54 PM

Earthlink wrote:
Contrary to my understanding, the with_pipeline procedure runs 6 time slower than the legacy no_pipeline procedure. Am I missing something? Well, we're missing a lot here.
Like:
- a database version
- how did you test
- what data do you have, how is it distributed, indexed
and so on.
If you want to find out what's going on then use a TRACE with wait events.
All nessecary steps are explained in these threads:
HOW TO: Post a SQL statement tuning request - template posting
http://oracle-randolf.blogspot.com/2009/02/basic-sql-statement-performance.html
Another nice one is RUNSTATS:
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/ASKTOM.download_file?p_file=6551378329289980701

Performance issues when creating a Report / Query in Discoverer

Hi forum,
Hope you are can help, it involves a performance issues when creating a Report / Query.
I have a Discoverer Report that currently takes less than 5 seconds to run. After I add a condition to bring back Batch Status that = Posted we cancelled the query after reaching 20 minutes as this is way too long. If I remove the condition the query time goes back to less than 5 seconds.
Please see attached the SQL Inspector Plan:
Before Condition
SELECT STATEMENT
SORT GROUP BY
VIEW SYS
SORT GROUP BY
NESTED LOOPS OUTER
NESTED LOOPS OUTER
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS OUTER
NESTED LOOPS OUTER
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS OUTER
NESTED LOOPS OUTER
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_CODE_COMBINATIONS
AND-EQUAL
INDEX RANGE SCAN GL.GL_CODE_COMBINATIONS_N2
INDEX RANGE SCAN GL.GL_CODE_COMBINATIONS_N1
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES
INDEX RANGE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES_N1
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUE_SETS
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUE_SETS_U1
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES_TL
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES_TL_U1
INDEX RANGE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUE_NORM_HIER_U1
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_JE_LINES
INDEX RANGE SCAN GL.GL_JE_LINES_N1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_SETS_OF_BOOKS_U2
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_JE_HEADERS
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_DAILY_CONVERSION_TYPES_U1
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_JE_SOURCES_TL
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_SOURCES_TL_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_CATEGORIES_TL_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_BATCHES_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_BUDGET_VERSIONS_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_ENCUMBRANCE_TYPES_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_SETS_OF_BOOKS_U2
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_JE_BATCHES
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_BATCHES_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_SETS_OF_BOOKS_U2
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_BATCHES_U1
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_PERIODS
INDEX RANGE SCAN GL.GL_PERIODS_U1
After Condition
SELECT STATEMENT
SORT GROUP BY
VIEW SYS
SORT GROUP BY
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS OUTER
NESTED LOOPS OUTER
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS OUTER
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS OUTER
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS OUTER
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS
NESTED LOOPS OUTER
NESTED LOOPS
TABLE ACCESS FULL GL.GL_JE_BATCHES
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_SETS_OF_BOOKS_U2
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_BATCHES_U1
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_JE_HEADERS
INDEX RANGE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_N1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_SETS_OF_BOOKS_U2
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_ENCUMBRANCE_TYPES_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_DAILY_CONVERSION_TYPES_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_BUDGET_VERSIONS_U1
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_JE_SOURCES_TL
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_SOURCES_TL_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_CATEGORIES_TL_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_BATCHES_U1
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_JE_LINES
INDEX RANGE SCAN GL.GL_JE_LINES_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_SETS_OF_BOOKS_U2
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_CODE_COMBINATIONS
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_CODE_COMBINATIONS_U1
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID GL.GL_PERIODS
INDEX RANGE SCAN GL.GL_PERIODS_U1
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES
INDEX RANGE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES_N1
INDEX RANGE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUE_NORM_HIER_U1
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES_TL
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUES_TL_U1
TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUE_SETS
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN APPLSYS.FND_FLEX_VALUE_SETS_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_U1
INDEX UNIQUE SCAN GL.GL_JE_HEADERS_U1
Is there anything i can do in Discoverer Desktop / Administration to avoid this problem.
Many thanks,
Lance

Hi Rod,
I've tried the condition (Batch Status||'' = 'Posted') as you suggested, but the qeury time is still over 20 mins. To test i changed it to (Batch Status||'' = 'Unposted') and the query was returned within seconds again.
Ive been doing some more digging and have found the database view that is linked to the Journal Batches folder. See below.
I think the problem is with the column using DECODE. When querying the column in TOAD the value of P is returned. But in discoverer the condition is done on the value Posted. Im not too sure how DECODE works, but think this could be the causing some sort of issue with Full Table Scans. How do we get around this?
Lance
DECODE( JOURNAL_BATCH1.STATUS,
'+', 'Unable to validate or create CTA',
'+*', 'Was unable to validate or create CTA',
'-','Invalid or inactive rounding differences account in journal entry',
'-*', 'Modified invalid or inactive rounding differences account in journal entry',
'<', 'Showing sequence assignment failure',
'<*', 'Was showing sequence assignment failure',
'>', 'Showing cutoff rule violation',
'>*', 'Was showing cutoff rule violation',
'A', 'Journal batch failed funds reservation',
'A*', 'Journal batch previously failed funds reservation',
'AU', 'Showing batch with unopened period',
'B', 'Showing batch control total violation',
'B*', 'Was showing batch control total violation',
'BF', 'Showing batch with frozen or inactive budget',
'BU', 'Showing batch with unopened budget year',
'C', 'Showing unopened reporting period',
'C*', 'Was showing unopened reporting period',
'D', 'Selected for posting to an unopened period',
'D*', 'Was selected for posting to an unopened period',
'E', 'Showing no journal entries for this batch',
'E*', 'Was showing no journal entries for this batch',
'EU', 'Showing batch with unopened encumbrance year',
'F', 'Showing unopened reporting encumbrance year',
'F*', 'Was showing unopened reporting encumbrance year',
'G', 'Showing journal entry with invalid or inactive suspense account',
'G*', 'Was showing journal entry with invalid or inactive suspense account',
'H', 'Showing encumbrance journal entry with invalid or inactive reserve account',
'H*', 'Was showing encumbrance journal entry with invalid or inactive reserve account',
'I', 'In the process of being posted',
'J', 'Showing journal control total violation',
'J*', 'Was showing journal control total violation',
'K', 'Showing unbalanced intercompany journal entry',
'K*', 'Was showing unbalanced intercompany journal entry',
'L', 'Showing unbalanced journal entry by account category',
'L*', 'Was showing unbalanced journal entry by account category',
'M', 'Showing multiple problems preventing posting of batch',
'M*', 'Was showing multiple problems preventing posting of batch',
'N', 'Journal produced error during intercompany balance processing',
'N*', 'Journal produced error during intercompany balance processing',
'O', 'Unable to convert amounts into reporting currency',
'O*', 'Was unable to convert amounts into reporting currency',
'P', 'Posted',
'Q', 'Showing untaxed journal entry',
'Q*', 'Was showing untaxed journal entry',
'R', 'Showing unbalanced encumbrance entry without reserve account',
'R*', 'Was showing unbalanced encumbrance entry without reserve account',
'S', 'Already selected for posting',
'T', 'Showing invalid period and conversion information for this batch',
'T*', 'Was showing invalid period and conversion information for this batch',
'U', 'Unposted',
'V', 'Journal batch is unapproved',
'V*', 'Journal batch was unapproved',
'W', 'Showing an encumbrance journal entry with no encumbrance type',
'W*', 'Was showing an encumbrance journal entry with no encumbrance type',
'X', 'Showing an unbalanced journal entry but suspense not allowed',
'X*', 'Was showing an unbalanced journal entry but suspense not allowed',
'Z', 'Showing invalid journal entry lines or no journal entry lines',
'Z*', 'Was showing invalid journal entry lines or no journal entry lines', NULL ),

Performance issue in a custom table

Hi All,
I have a ztable used in a program wherin I have a doubt of performance issue in selection.Its like :
    SELECT ship_no invoice_no
      INTO TABLE it_ship_no_hist
      FROM zco_cust_hist
      FOR ALL ENTRIES IN it_freight
      WHERE ship_no = it_freight-tknum.
there are 7 key fields in this table out of which one ( tknum ) is used in a where condition.The table is without any index.
   For performance purpose should I create an index with the very field 'tknum' in the index..can I do that or index should be created only along with non key fields.

Hi,
a table has - besides a few exceptions - always one index that is the primary key. The fields are the key fields in the same order as in the table.
The primary key is always there and therefore not displayed under the botton 'index'.
Is tknum a key field? What are the key fields in correct order? If it is in the key and maybe the first one, then it does not make sense that you create an index.
Siegfried

Performance Issue on Select Condition on KNA1 table

Hi,
I am facing problem when i am selecting from the table KNA1 for given account group and attribute9 it is taking lot of time .
Please suggest the select query or any other feasible soln to solve this problem
select
kunnr
kotkd
from kna1
where kunnr eq parameter value and
kotkd eq 'ZPY' and katr9 = 'L' or 'T'.
Firstly i am using in in katr9 then i removed dur to performance issue using read further please suggest further performanace soln

Hi,
The select should be like:
select
kunnr
kotkd
from kna1
where kunnr eq parameter value
and kotkd eq 'ZPY'
and katr9 in r_katr9. " 'L' or 'T'.
create a range for katr9 like r_katr9 with L or T.
Because while selecting the entries from KNA1, it will check for KATR9 = L and then KATR9 = T.
Hope the above statement is useful for you.
Regards,
Shiva.

View objects performance issue with oracle seeded tables

While i am writing a view object on a oracle seeded tables like MTL_PARAMETERS, its taking more time to show in the oaf page.I am trying to display all these view object columns in detail disclosure of advanced table. My Application is taking more than two minutes to display the view columns of the query which is returning just 200 rows. Please help me how to improve performance when my query using seeded tables.
This issue is happening only in R12 view object and advanced tables.
Edited by: vlsn on Jun 24, 2012 11:36 PM

Hi All,
Here is architecture of my application:
Java application creates XML from the screen values and then inserts that XML
into a framework(separate DB schema) table . then Java calls a Stored Procedure from same framework DB and in SP we have following steps.
1. It fatches XML from the XML type table and inserts XML into screen specific XML TYPE table in the framework DB Schema. This table has a trigger which parses XML and then inserts XML values into GTT which are created in separate product schemas.
2. it calls Product SP and then in product SP we have business logic. Product SP
does the execution and then inserts response into Response GTT.
3. Response XML is created by using XML generation function and response GTT.
I hope u will understand my architeture this time and now let me know if GTT are good in this scenario or not. also please not that i need data in GTT only during execution and not after that. i dont want to do specific delete which i have to do if i am using normal tables.
Regards,
Vikas Kumar

CREATE TABLE AS - PERFORMANCE ISSUE

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for